Why Switch Is Faster Than If

Is else if faster than switch() case?

For just a few items, the difference is small. If you have many items you should definitely use a switch.

If a switch contains more than five items, it's implemented using a lookup table or a hash list. This means that all items get the same access time, compared to a list of if:s where the last item takes much more time to reach as it has to evaluate every previous condition first.

Why switch is faster than if

Because there are special bytecodes that allow efficient switch statement evaluation when there are a lot of cases.

If implemented with IF-statements you would have a check, a jump to the next clause, a check, a jump to the next clause and so on. With switch the JVM loads the value to compare and iterates through the value table to find a match, which is faster in most cases.

Is 'switch' faster than 'if'?

There are several optimizations a compiler can make on a switch. I don't think the oft-mentioned "jump-table" is a very useful one though, as it only works when the input can be bounded some way.

C Pseudocode for a "jump table" would be something like this -- note that the compiler in practice would need to insert some form of if test around the table to ensure that the input was valid in the table. Note also that it only works in the specific case that the input is a run of consecutive numbers.

If the number of branches in a switch is extremely large, a compiler can do things like using binary search on the values of the switch, which (in my mind) would be a much more useful optimization, as it does significantly increase performance in some scenarios, is as general as a switch is, and does not result in greater generated code size. But to see that, your test code would need a LOT more branches to see any difference.

To answer your specific questions:

1. Clang generates one that looks like this:

   test_switch(char):                       # @test_switch(char)
           movl    %edi, %eax
           cmpl    $19, %edi
           jbe     .LBB0_1
           retq
   .LBB0_1:
           jmpq    *.LJTI0_0(,%rax,8)
           jmp     void call<0u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<1u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<2u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<3u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<4u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<5u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<6u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<7u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<8u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<9u>()         # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<10u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<11u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<12u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<13u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<14u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<15u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<16u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<17u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<18u>()        # TAILCALL
           jmp     void call<19u>()        # TAILCALL
   .LJTI0_0:
           .quad   .LBB0_2
           .quad   .LBB0_3
           .quad   .LBB0_4
           .quad   .LBB0_5
           .quad   .LBB0_6
           .quad   .LBB0_7
           .quad   .LBB0_8
           .quad   .LBB0_9
           .quad   .LBB0_10
           .quad   .LBB0_11
           .quad   .LBB0_12
           .quad   .LBB0_13
           .quad   .LBB0_14
           .quad   .LBB0_15
           .quad   .LBB0_16
           .quad   .LBB0_17
           .quad   .LBB0_18
           .quad   .LBB0_19
           .quad   .LBB0_20
           .quad   .LBB0_21
   

2. I can say that it is not using a jump table -- 4 comparison instructions are clearly visible:

   13FE81C51 cmp  qword ptr [rsp+30h],1 
   13FE81C57 je   testSwitch+73h (13FE81C73h) 
   13FE81C59 cmp  qword ptr [rsp+30h],2 
   13FE81C5F je   testSwitch+87h (13FE81C87h) 
   13FE81C61 cmp  qword ptr [rsp+30h],3 
   13FE81C67 je   testSwitch+9Bh (13FE81C9Bh) 
   13FE81C69 cmp  qword ptr [rsp+30h],4 
   13FE81C6F je   testSwitch+0AFh (13FE81CAFh) 
   

   A jump table based solution does not use comparison at all.

3. Either not enough branches to cause the compiler to generate a jump table, or your compiler simply doesn't generate them. I'm not sure which.

EDIT 2014: There has been some discussion elsewhere from people familiar with the LLVM optimizer saying that the jump table optimization can be important in many scenarios; e.g. in cases where there is an enumeration with many values and many cases against values in said enumeration. That said, I stand by what I said above in 2011 -- too often I see people thinking "if I make it a switch, it'll be the same time no matter how many cases I have" -- and that's completely false. Even with a jump table you get the indirect jump cost and you pay for entries in the table for each case; and memory bandwidth is a Big Deal on modern hardware.

Write code for readability. Any compiler worth its salt is going to see an if / else if ladder and transform it into equivalent switch or vice versa if it would be faster to do so.

if else vs switch performance in java

Switch perf is better than if else as in case of switch there will be one time evaluation . Once it evaluated the switch it knows which case needs to be executed but in case of if else it has to go through all conditions in case of worst scenario.

The longer the list condition, better will be switch performance but for shorter list (just two conditions), it can be slower also

From Why switch is faster than if

With switch the JVM loads the value to compare and iterates through
the value table to find a match, which is faster in most cases

Which is Faster and better, Switch Case or if else if?

Your first example is simply wrong. You need elseif instead of just else.

If you use if..elseif... or switch is mainly a matter of preference. The performance is the same.

However, if all your conditions are of the type x == value with x being the same in every condition, switch usually makes sense. I'd also only use switch if there are more than e.g. two conditions.

A case where switch actually gives you a performance advantage is if the variable part is a function call:

switch(some_func()) {
    case 1: ... break;
    case 2: ... break;
}

Then some_func() is only called once while with

if(some_func() == 1) {}
elseif(some_func() == 2) {}

it would be called twice - including possible side-effects of the function call happening twice. However, you could always use $res = some_func(); and then use $res in your if conditions - so you can avoid this problem alltogether.

A case where you cannot use switch at all is when you have more complex conditions - switch only works for x == y with y being a constant value.

Advantage of switch over if-else statement

Use switch.

In the worst case the compiler will generate the same code as a if-else chain, so you don't lose anything. If in doubt put the most common cases first into the switch statement.

In the best case the optimizer may find a better way to generate the code. Common things a compiler does is to build a binary decision tree (saves compares and jumps in the average case) or simply build a jump-table (works without compares at all).

Is there any significant difference between using if/else and switch-case in C#?

SWITCH statement only produces same assembly as IFs in debug or compatibility mode. In release, it will be compiled into jump table (through MSIL 'switch' statement)- which is O(1).

C# (unlike many other languages) also allows to switch on string constants - and this works a bit differently. It's obviously not practical to build jump tables for strings of arbitrary lengths, so most often such switch will be compiled into stack of IFs.

But if number of conditions is big enough to cover overheads, C# compiler will create a HashTable object, populate it with string constants and make a lookup on that table followed by jump. Hashtable lookup is not strictly O(1) and has noticeable constant costs, but if number of case labels is large, it will be significantly faster than comparing to each string constant in IFs.

To sum it up, if number of conditions is more than 5 or so, prefer SWITCH over IF, otherwise use whatever looks better.

Why is the switch statement faster than if else for String in Java 7?

Java Code

Having two versions of a class, e.g.

With if-then-else:

public class IfThenElseClass {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String str = "C";
        if ("A".equals(str)) {

        } else if ("B".equals(str)) {

        } else if ("C".equals(str)) {

        }
    }
}

With switch:

public class SwitchClass {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String str = "C";
        switch (str) {
            case "A":
                break;
            case "B":
                break;
            case "C":
                break;
        }
    }
}

Bytecode

Let's take a look at the bytecode. Getting the bytecode for if-then-else version:

Compiled from "CompileSwitch.java"
public class CompileSwitch {
  public CompileSwitch();
    Code:
       0: aload_0
       1: invokespecial #8  // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
       4: return

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
    Code:
       0: ldc           #16 // String C
       2: astore_1
       3: ldc           #18 // String A
       5: aload_1
       6: invokevirtual #20 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
       9: ifne          28
      12: ldc           #26 // String B
      14: aload_1
      15: invokevirtual #20 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      18: ifne          28
      21: ldc           #16 // String C
      23: aload_1
      24: invokevirtual #20 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      27: pop
      28: return
}

Getting the bytecode for switch version:

Compiled from "CompileSwitch.java"
public class CompileSwitch {
  public CompileSwitch();
    Code:
       0: aload_0
       1: invokespecial #8 // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
       4: return

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
    Code:
       0: ldc           #16 // String C
       2: astore_1
       3: aload_1
       4: dup
       5: astore_2
       6: invokevirtual #18 // Method java/lang/String.hashCode:()I
       9: lookupswitch  { // 3
                    65: 44
                    66: 56
                    67: 68
               default: 77
          }
      44: aload_2
      45: ldc           #24 // String A
      47: invokevirtual #26 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      50: ifne          77
      53: goto          77
      56: aload_2
      57: ldc           #30 // String B
      59: invokevirtual #26 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      62: ifne          77
      65: goto          77
      68: aload_2
      69: ldc           #16 // String C
      71: invokevirtual #26 // Method java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      74: ifne          77
      77: return
}

Conclusion

• In the first version compares the string by calling the equals method for each condition, until it is found.

• In the second version is obtained first hashCode of the string. Then this is compared with the values ​​hashCode each case. See the lookupswitch. If any of these values ​​is repeated just happens to run the code for the case. Otherwise, call the equals method of the cases tied. This is much faster than ever call the equals method only.

When to use If-else if-else over switch statements and vice versa

As with most things you should pick which to use based on the context and what is conceptually the correct way to go. A switch is really saying "pick one of these based on this variables value" but an if statement is just a series of boolean checks.

As an example, if you were doing:

int value = // some value
if (value == 1) {
    doThis();
} else if (value == 2) {
    doThat();
} else {
    doTheOther();
}

This would be much better represented as a switch as it then makes it immediately obviously that the choice of action is occurring based on the value of "value" and not some arbitrary test.

Also, if you find yourself writing switches and if-elses and using an OO language you should be considering getting rid of them and using polymorphism to achieve the same result if possible.

Finally, regarding switch taking longer to type, I can't remember who said it but I did once read someone ask "is your typing speed really the thing that affects how quickly you code?" (paraphrased)

---

Related Topics